Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sweet Home Central School District v. Aetna Commercial Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 9, 1999Published

1Dissent

Green, J. P., and Pigott, Jr., J.

(dissenting). Because we disagree with the majority’s conclusion that defendants, Aetna Commercial Insurance Company and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (Aetna), have no duty to defend or indemnify plaintiff, Sweet Home Central School District of Amherst and Tonawanda (Sweet Home), we respectfully dissent for two reasons.

First, the policies define an “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” “In deciding whether a loss is the result of an accident, it must be determined,…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Continental Casualty Co. v. Rapid-American Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. Mount Vernon Fire Insurance v. Creative Housing Ltd.New York Court of Appeals · 1996
  3. Kenneth R. v. Roman Catholic DioceseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  4. Miller v. Continental InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
  5. Judith M. v. Sisters of Charity HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1999

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API